Fixed typographical errors, spelling mistakes, punctuation inconsistencies, and grammer issues; no changes made to author's message

Memory-footprint:-what-happens-inside-uBlock-after-installation.md

@@ -1,35 +1,35 @@
 1. uBlock will load the default selection of filter lists:
-    - This causes short-term memory churning (loading/parsing/sorting/storing), which short-term memory will be garbage-collected eventually
+    - This causes short-term memory churning (loading/parsing/sorting/storing); short-term memory will be garbage-collected eventually
     - All this short-term memory churning causes uBlock's baseline memory footprint to grow further
-1. **A few minutes later**, uBlock will look whether one or more filter lists need to be updated
-1. If one or more filter lists need to be updated, uBlock will launch a background task which will fetch an updated version of whatever filter list is deemed obsolete
-1. Once all filter lists are brought up to date, uBlock will flush from memory all filters and reload with the latest version
-    - This will causes another round of short-term memory churning, which short-term memory will be garbage-collected eventually
+1. **A few minutes later**, uBlock will look whether one or more filter lists needs to be updated
+1. If one or more filter lists need to be updated, uBlock will launch a background task which will fetch an updated version of whatever filter list is obsolete
+1. Once all filter lists are brought up to date, uBlock will flush from memory all filters and reload them with the latest version
+    - This will cause another round of short-term memory churning; short-term memory will be garbage-collected eventually
     - Again, all this short term memory churning causes uBlock's baseline memory footprint to grow further
-    - You can disable auto-update if you want, but it is optimal to let µBlock take care of this, i.e. manually forcing an update is sub-optimal
+    - You can disable auto-update if you want, but it is optimal to let uBlock take care of this, i.e. manually forcing an update is sub-optimal
 1. **A few minutes later**, assuming no change in selection of filter lists, or change in the content of selected filter lists, uBlock will make a selfie
-    - A selfie allows µBlock to skip the parsing/sorting of data next time it loads
-    - Generating the selfie also causes short-term memory churning, which short-term memory will be garbage-collected eventually
-    - Again, this short term memory churning causes uBlock's baseline memory footprint to grow further
+    - A selfie allows uBlock to skip the parsing/sorting of data next time it loads
+    - Generating the selfie also causes short-term memory churning; short-term memory will be garbage-collected eventually
+    - Again, this short-term memory churning causes uBlock's baseline memory footprint to grow further
     - Any change in the selection of filter lists, or change in the content of selected filter lists will invalidate uBlock's selfie
-1. Even after the growth in memory baseline, uBlock's _own memory_ footprint is still quite smaller than that of Adblock Plus -- once the garbage collector does its job.
+1. Even after the growth in memory baseline, uBlock's _own memory_ footprint is still quite a bit smaller than that of Adblock Plus (ABP) -- once the garbage collector does its job
 1. uBlock's much smaller _contributed memory_ footprint to web pages is much smaller than that of ABP
     - The contributed footprint to web pages is part of the memory footprint of the web pages themselves 
     - As opposed to an extension's own memory footprint, visible using Chromium's _"Task Manager"_, the contributed memory footprint to web pages cannot be easily seen by users
-    - Though this measure is not readily visible, it's where you get the biggest bang for the buck with µBlock relative to ABP -- because uBlock **does not** inject thousands of CSS rules into pages and embedded frames.
+    - Though this measure is not readily visible, it's where you get the biggest bang for the buck with uBlock relative to ABP -- because uBlock **does not** inject thousands of CSS rules into pages and embedded frames
 
-Now if you have reached the point where there is a valid uBlock selfie, this is when µBlock will run the most efficiently.
+Once you have reached the point where there is a valid uBlock selfie, µBlock will run the most efficiently.
 
 The next time you launch uBlock and there is a valid selfie, the load time will be a fraction of the load time when no selfie is available <sup>[1]</sup>, and uBlock's baseline memory footprint will be smaller than when uBlock launches without a selfie available.
 
-So my point is that uBlock will perform best efficiency wise if you leave it time to optimize itself after installation: In subsequent launches, uBlock will perform more efficiently than what you may have observed right after you installed it.
+So my point is that uBlock will perform at best efficiency if you give it time to optimize itself after installation: In subsequent launches, uBlock will perform more efficiently than what you may have observed immediately after you installed it.
 
 <sub>[1] See <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpypOeK10N8></sub>
 ***
 
-Also, if you want to look at memory figures, aside the above notes regarding garbage collection, keep in mind:
+Also, if you want to look at memory figures, in addition to the above notes regarding garbage collection, keep in mind:
 
-- The [Chromium bug](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=441500) which causes systemetically a memory leak when opening an extension popup UI.
+- The [Chromium bug](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=441500) which causes systematically a memory leak when opening an extension popup UI.
 - Currently opened extension option page(s) contribute to increase the extension's memory use
 - Sometimes a browser's garbage collector ("GC") is lazier than others, i.e. it may takes longer to kick in.
     - In my benchmarks, it has happened I had to force a GC cycle using dev tools.